bullets13

While you're correct that she had the right to not put out the cigarette, what people keep failing to realize is that he had the right to arrest her the second he witnessed her commit that traffic infraction. So while she did not have to put it out, if that was the last straw in the steady stream of disrespect she was throwing his way that led him to decide to arrest her instead of letting her off with a warning or a ticket, then that's her fault, not his. If an officer isn't going to arrest someone but decides to because of their poor attitude and disrespectfulness, that's on the citizen, not the officer. If the citizen then throws a fit and kicks the officer because they don't like the fact that he's arresting them on a legitimate charge, the new charges they earn are on them as well.

I think the media is the biggest problem in race relations right now. Look at the Michael Brown case. He was made a martyr by the media, while the officer who shot him was simultaneously tried and convicted in the news for "killing an unarmed black man.". Now it's been irrefutably proven that the shooting was completely justified. This barely even registered in the news. A racist killer cop gets page views, while a cop just doing his job does not. Every time a questionable (or not) shooting happens now, ferguson is brought up. it's been proven that A) Mike Brown was a criminal who had just minutes earlier committed a felony B ) he attacked an officer and tried to take his gun and C) charged the officer again after already having been shot. Even though all of these are proven facts, the media still portrays him as a victim of racial violence, to the point that he's GETTING A STATUE in his honor. How does this happen? A felon attacks a cop immediately after committing a robbery and is shot and killed, and his hometown gives him a statue? The media, that's how. One of the most divisive events in decades was completely misrepresented by the media or it wouldn't have been divisive at all. It's also led to more divisive coverage. Sandra Bland should not be news. Eric Gardener should not have been news. When police are crucified in the media for doing their jobs, and especially when the media puts racial spin on it, it's incredibly divisive. There are literally less than a handful of police killings a year where police act outside of the law and kill a black person, despite there being tens or even hundreds of millions of police interactions with black citizens a year. And those officers are generally indicted, tried , and convicted. And while any such killing is unacceptable, the media has led many to believe that police violence perpetrated by white cops on black citizens is not only commonplace, which is inaccurate, but is the biggest problem that blacks face today, which is laughable. The media is solely responsible for this, as well as the polarized view points surrounding these cases, which have set back race relations tremendously.

Can't photoshop out 3 days worth of decomposition from her autopsy.

And had she been respectful, that's exactly what would've happened.

Her overall attitude in general led to the escalation of the situation. When you're pulled over for something that could land you in a jail cell, it's probably best to be polite, such as putting out your cigarette so you're not blowing smoke in the officer's face while he's got his face down in your window.

Until the media quits making martyrs out of criminals, we're going to continue to see asinine behavior from citizens in situations like this. And even though police are held to higher standards than the general public, that does not mean they deserve all the blame when they lose their cool in a situation that someone else instigated. Bland's family is probably about to get a million bucks because their daughter was a total A-hole during a traffic stop, a trooper responded to her rudeness with rudeness of his own, and then she killed herself 3 days later. How does that make any sense? All of this because of public outrage generated by a non-story being made into a sensation in a media climate where police misdeeds (both real and imagined) are the quickest way to get Internet traffic and tv audiences.

Not sure what there would be to edit at that point, especially if the audio is rolling.

People now claiming the video was edited. I would assume that the camera had some sort of malfunction, as I find it hard to believe that they would edit it so obviously and release it.

It ABSOLUTELY has nothing to do with her death, unless we find out that the trooper went to the jail and suffocated her with a plastic bag.

Looks like she was belligerent with the officers, possibly assaulted one of them, and resisted arrest. During that time, one of the officers did something that got him in trouble, perhaps overreacting to her being a jackass. People seem to think that it's completely acceptable to disrespect, disregard, or disobey officers, and then blame those officers for overreacting to this (in very rare instances). While this reaction is not acceptable, both parties are culpable. That being said, the Internet is having a hard time separating two different incidents. The prevailing theory seems to be that she was completely innocent, arrested without cause, and then murdered in her cell 3 days later for unknown reasons. I don't think I need to explain the holes in this narrative. As best I can tell, she had a chip on her shoulders when it came to police, got belligerent when pulled over for an arrestable defense, made a cop lose his cool a little (leading to his reprimand), and was put in jail legitimately. There are cameras outside her cell that reportedly show nobody entering/leaving her cell during the time of her death that have been turned over to the FBI. I'm not sure what sounds so fishy about someone with a history of PTSD and depression killing themselves while sitting in jail on a felony charge that will likely lose them their new dream job before it even started, but with the media's new habit of indicting law enforcement it would certainly appear that many folks are taking the bait.

I teach 3-year-olds. You better believe the full moon does something.

Does the fact that does occasionally grow antlers add any validity to the opposing argument?

Obama does not need to talk about the woman killed in San Francisco. He also had no business getting involved with Trayvon, Gardener, or Mike Brown. Presidents should not be dishing out hot takes on crimes, PARTICULARLY without any details being available. That being said, apart from politicizing it (which all presidents do when a major incident occurs), I can't criticize him for showing up after the SC church shooting. A president should be visible after events like that. I just find it unfortunate that he did not provide the same presence after several other similar tragedies in the past several years.

To appease the masses. This incident was misrepresented in the media and caused outrage that wasn't deserved. I'm assuming that the city is trying to avoid more.

Excellent stuff.

Crazy. I can't remember the last time we had an alligator attack around here, and then we have two in a week.

It all comes down to whether or not you feel that gay is genetic or a choice. I've talked to dozens of people who've said "I was -- years old and knew I was different. I wasn't attracted to the opposite sex." I've never heard of anyone who said "I was 11 years old, and knew I wanted to have 3 wives."

Actually, this thread is about a hardware store owner who has posted a sign that no gays are allowed in his store. I can actually understand where the cake shop owner is coming from, even if I don't necessarily agree with him. The same goes for churches. A church should not have to wed them if they don't want to. This case is a little different.

I heard they also arrested one of his posse. Dude goes by the name Mo Lester.

I would make that distinction. Not sure I'd make one between gays and people having sex out of wedlock, though. It's also worth noting that he didn't ban child molesters ;)

The occasional gay customer is going to cost him business? Gay customers go to EVERY business. That being said, I'm not arguing whether he has a right to do so. I'm asking other Christians that, as a minister, is he demonstrating Christianity by singling out an individual sin to ban from his store while continuing to cater to sinners of all other kinds. Whether or not you believe in gay marriage, I can't find anything in the bible that preaches picking one sin and denying that sinner the opportunities that you'd afford to different types of sinners.

Since he's a baptist preacher who doesn't want gays in his store because "what they're doing is wrong", shouldn't he also be banning divorcees, fornicators, liars, blasphemers, idolators, and all other manner of sinners from his store?

I don't support him either.

This could very well be the instance that brings it in front of the the SC for review, depending on how long it stays in the news and whether or not it brings about a lawsuit.

Your thoughts?